Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 3 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.

With the initiative in Washington State to legalize personal amounts of marijuana, which also enacts a DUID clause stating that one cannot drive under the drug's influence, a very important question is brought up. The law states that people caught driving with more than 5 nanograms of THC detectable in their blood will be subject to criminal prosecution for drugged driving. The test does not look for metabolites of THC and thus would only cause prosecution if THC itself were found in such concentrations in the blood.

So this bears the question, just how long does THC itself stay in the bloodstream above this threshold after using cannabis? Is it detectable only while the user can still feel the effects of the drug? Or is it longer than that? How long after one has sobered up is one still above the threshold and can be prosecuted for driving drugged under this law?

I think this is an extremely important question to have the answer to, seeing as this law is likely to pass.

Greenport added 178 Minutes and 0 Seconds later...

Man nobody must use this site anymore. I made this post hours ago and nobody's responded yet

Post Quality Evaluations:

Very relevant question, and one that may need to be asked in my state of Colorado. Indeed, how long is one liable to a "drugged driving" charge?

Great question and if mods will OK it I can post some info that relates to this very question since it's from an Online Magazine for medical Marijuana

Good q but have patience.

Last edited by Greenport; 03-11-2012 at 00:23.
Reason: Automerged Doublepost

It really depends on the person and how much they smoke. People who smoke a lot and or are medical users can have 5+ng/ml for 9-12hours after stopping. It's really hard to say since it can vary so much per person and what would make a person who is sensitive to THC be completely gone to someone who smokes regularly or heavy be not even noticeable. The DUID law with it in Washington has been in effect since August 1st actually and a lady in Seattle was pulled over after leaving a despondency and charged with a DUID and her license is currently suspended cause she refused the blood draw. Also a guy in Oak Harbor is battling cause he is a medical patient as well and had a tail light out, officer say a small bud on the floor of his car so tested him and he passed all the field sobriety tests but even 9 hours after his last bowl he still came up with over 5ng/ml and is battling it out. While I don't encourage driving when under the influence of ANYTHING that could alter ones state of mind for a lot of people unless they are either new smokers or non smokers can have 5+ng/ml even from just contact high having no impairments.

They need to really work with this. I understand needing to make it kind of "harsh" so people don't think that now it's legal they can drive around stoned out of there mind they need to find a way of making it so it's based on if the person is noticeably impaired along with a high level of THC. The stories of the two I mentioned were from The Northwest Leaf online magazine. Also anyone under 21 who has more then 0ng/ml will be charged with MIP/DUID even if it's from a contact high and they are sober which is really bad. Gotta love Zero Tolerance crap.

If the mods are OK with it since I know offsite links are a no no I can post the link for the Online Article/magazine. Also I just remembered there is a case in Bellingham of a medical patient who just cause he users on a daily basis came up with over 10ng/ml after 12 hours even though he was not impaired at all. It's definitely going to be interesting on how this works out. I am just mainly worried about people under 21 who might get busted for a DUID for just being around some one else who was smoking cause for them it's instant charge even if they didn't smoke there self but was near someone who might have.

Post Quality Evaluations:

Just absolutely excellent info that completely answers the OP's question.

Very informative! :) And you can post the article in the Drug News Forum, under Medical Marijuana News, and link to that from this thread. Great job!

Thanks for responding, yeah I think that over time this limit is going to have to be raised to a sensible level - however I don't think it's going to be that hard to do. People are going to want this changed if it starts causing problems, especially with the zero-tolerance under 21 rule - because it is definitely possible for one to have a detectable level of THC in one's system just from being around people who are smoking, which for people ages 16-21 is a highly likely scenario.

Also, that brings up another point in that THC seems to linger in the body longer when used often, and thus how does one handle that? I don't think that it can come down to a simple field test. There needs to be some kind of judgment call I suppose somewhere that says okay this person is obviously intoxicated, versus okay this person swerved accidentally but doesn't show obvious signs of intoxication. As far as the 5ng/ml limit, there needs to be more data showing just how many ng/ml show up for various periods of time after smoking, including for people who smoke habitually. I'm sure that the number is much higher than 5ng/ml right after smoking, probably in the hundreds of ng/ml. But then I could be wrong. However if such is the case, then a more sensible number can be obtained and worked with.

Hopefully it will be looked in to. Last thing I would want is my girlfriend to get busted with a DUID/MIP since she wont be 21 until next year and it be cause I smoked and she was close enough to have any THC in her system or if she were to smoke herself and for what ever reason hours later get stopped by a cop. All I know is 99% of the people who I have talked to who are against it...there issue seems to be "Think of the children!!!" or "its just going to make crime worse!" >_> uhm what? Or the people thinking since it's now legal you can suddenly walk around smoking a joint or go to a bar etc and light a bowl or something up. It's almost as if no one read the whole bill. Owell it's a start at the least.

I would go ahead and post the information, the mods will delete it if they're not okay with it

But yeah I think that's a realistic concern for a lot of people. People between the ages of 16 and 21 are at the highest risk of being exposed to marijuana smoke, whether they choose to smoke it or not. Also, most drug tests still detect a level of THC in one's system even if there is none. I've seen this personally with probation - the levels are still below the threshold in that case to say somebody was using the drug, but still there nonetheless.

And yeah well that's the mentality of the sheeple. They don't understand that the act is to protect children and bring crime rates as well as legal costs both on the state and on the people down. What they're thinking is that this drug is going to be accessible to anyone and everyone - when the opposite is actually true. It will put the drug in the hands of those who are responsible enough to make a choice to use the drug, while further preventing those who are underage from being able to gain access to it. Not to mention there are those people who believe all drug use is bad and should be criminalized regardless.

I believe THC is stored in fat cells. It clears the system slowly and can be detected a month after use. Now for people that use regularly, it can take a lot longer. I would think that the limits they come up with would have to take into account variables. If someone is prescribed for daily use it's more than likely they would test over the limit, even when not "stoned"

What is the definition of recreational use? I have not read the amendment/bill whatever but with a legal background I would expect that they need clarify, define recreational use.

THC is likely stored in fat cells, however most THC is oxidized and metabolized into various inactive forms, which is mostly what is actually getting stored. The blood test only looks for THC itself and not these metabolites, which is supposed to discern that the person is actually under the influence of cannabis if they test over the limit. However, the discussion is whether the limit is high enough, and whether this 'built-up' THC can over time cause a person to fail a test long after they have ceased using the drug.

As far as the bill, it allows people over the age of 21 to possess and use up to an ounce of marijuana at any given time, as well as a certain amount of oil and/or products infused with marijuana. It also allows for the possession and use of paraphernalia, such as bongs, pipes, etc, as long as they are strictly related to the use of marijuana. Literally, recreational use of the drug is legalized, as long as one is not (under the law as written) intoxicated on the drug while driving, and meets all the rules set out by the law. Sale of the drug by anyone other than a storefront licensed by the liquor control board is still illegal and prosecutable.

The full text of the bill is available online. I'm too lazy to look for it right now